So Suzy is not coming here...
I suppose I am disappointed, but I respect her decision.
I am trying to get over my hangover. I played too much Beirut last night, and now I feel like shit...I have no choice but to call tonight an "in" night.
Rich, I will listen to the song later, I swear. I've just been....distracted. But I'm sure that if you adjusted it the way we talked about, it should be BRILLIANT.
and OMG, andrea (who some of you know, but probably doesn't read this) is now considering ditching the analytic philosophy and venturing into the sociology of knowledge! yeeeah! ::applause::
That's right, knowledge is socially determined....we all know it. =)
Anyway, it was interesting to get an email from her asking for literature on the topic after seeing Ian Hacking speak this afternoon...
For those of you unfamiliar, he is an "analytic" philosopher who is SO all too aware that knowledge is a purely social phenomenon...
what's really interesting is that in order to preserve his esteem within analytic philosophy, he has decided to divide "truth" into "truth" and "truthfulness." Truth exists as a purely formal concept, a timeless, static truth (see? he can keep insisting that there is a static truth)....truthfulness is socialized knowledge....and uh, he seems only to be concerned with truthfulness anyway...
What's a little dissatisfying though, is that he can't really speak to the relationship between truth and truthfulness nor adequately define what he means by static "truth"...
someone raised the question (kinda sorta, not so directly), and he basically dodged it! He also defined this static "truth" in three different ways that don't really jive with each other....
And he even talked about his admiration for Bruno LaTour, who is a, excuse me, THE sociologist of science and is totally able to integrate objective truth (or the object of inquiry in its observable properties) into the social process of knowledge creation...
Man, I wish Hacking would tell us how he thinks "truth" and "truthfulness" interact with or intersect each other....really, anything about how the observable properties of the object of inquiry fit into his theory of "truthfulness" would be much appreicated.
wow...that may have been confusing to you guys, especially because I didn't explain anything very fully, but it felt good to write it down as a note-to-self.
what else?
I think my advisor/theory professor really heeded to my suggestions about the way class should be run, and now, we are encouraged to discuss the pieces more freely, and I'm having more fun. Recently, I started to doubt that he liked me very much (because I get all anxious like that sometimes), but I'm starting to get the impression that he actually likes and respects me very much, but feels like he has to slow me down in class because some people aren't as into it as I am and don't have a theory background, so they aren't ready to skip clarification and jump into critique and theoretical manipulation.
um...i haven't done homework in 2 days.
fuck it, I'm just going to sit around and think about things i like to think about....
dammit.
love love love,
monica.
No comments:
Post a Comment